Yeah,choosing a drunk accused rapist who pays off accusers and whose own mother says he abuses women and no major experience in military leadership and did a horrendous job leading 2 veteran non profits for Defense Secretary is choosing competence and qualifications. We all know why he was really chose.
You do realize that Ivy league schools have lost lawsuits on not admitting Asians due to their race and DEI policies. In fact those lawsuits are cited in the lawsuit again the University of California in this case. Let's put it mildly -- this student is GREATLY OVERQUALIFIED for admission into many UC colleges -- that he got rejected by all 16 is absurd -- in several of them he was probably the top academic applicant. It is absurd that he was rejected -- and the rejection can only be based on his race and DEI admission policies. It's time we got back to merit based admissions with no racial profiling -- using race by the way violates California law as cited in the article. The discovery records in this lawsuit regarding the reasons for admission rejection are going to be very interesting.
So when all those qualified applicants get rejected every year they should all sue. Top 15 schools in the country should get sued by thousands of rejected qualified applicants. The rejection can only be based on your hypothesis....is that correct? He was probably the top applicant....was he?
Recognize that the Ivy League universities have now lost multiple lawsuits due to their DEI admission policies which rejected highly qualified candidates. These universities were forced to pay significant payouts and reform their policies. In this case involving the University of California it is a near certainty that the discovery process will demonstrate that the highly qualified student was denied UC admission to 16 colleges based on their race -- which clearly violates California law.
Let's start with the lawsuit that the Ivy universities lost in the U.S. Supreme Court and they were forced to eliminate race from their admissions criteria. Obviously when you start admissions based on merit -- the incoming classes are less diverse. We have discussed all of this previously on ET. Here are some relevant articles: MIT’s first freshman class since the Supreme Court’s affirmative-action ban is unmistakably less diverse https://fortune.com/2024/08/22/mit-...action-harvard-unc-diversity-race-admissions/ Asian Representation at MIT Increases after Supreme Court Ruling Ending Affirmative Action https://www.nationalreview.com/news...preme-court-ruling-ending-affirmative-action/ Harvard's Black enrollment dips after US Supreme Court bars affirmative action https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ha...eme-court-bars-affirmative-action-2024-09-11/ Supreme Court Rejects Affirmative Action Programs at Harvard and U.N.C. In earlier decisions, the court had endorsed taking account of race as one factor among many to promote educational diversity. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/...dmissions-affirmative-action-harvard-unc.html Yale, Princeton, Duke Threatened With Lawsuit Over 'Not Complying' With Supreme Court Ruling On Racial Preferences in Admissions Group behind affirmative action ban says decline in Asian students is evidence of discrimination https://freebeacon.com/campus/yale-princeton-and-duke-threatened-with-lawsuit-over-admissions-data/ Supreme Court Bans Race-Conscious Admissions The ruling encompasses both public and private institutions of higher education. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2023/06/harvard-supreme-court-ruling-2023 These DEI admission policies led to significant financial losses for the universities. Judge Dismisses Part of Harvard’s Lawsuit to Recoup Millions in Legal Fees A federal judge agreed to dismiss two counts in a lawsuit filed by Harvard against insurance broker Marsh USA in a major setback for the University’s efforts to recoup nearly $15 million in legal fees incurred from defending its race-conscious admissions practices in court. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/8/16/harvard-lawsuit-dismissed-legal-fees-marsh-usa/ Exclusive: UNC pays anti-affirmative action group $4.8 million after US Supreme Court loss https://www.reuters.com/world/us/un...llion-after-us-supreme-court-loss-2024-01-30/ UNC's unsuccessful race-based admissions fight cost $25 million UNC-Chapel Hill hired one of the country's biggest law firms in 2014 to defend its affirmative action admissions policy. The university lost a U.S. Supreme Court case over the policy, an effort that cost UNC at least $24.5 million. More costs could come. https://www.wral.com/story/unc-s-unsuccessful-race-based-admissions-fight-cost-25-million/21037612/ We can also discuss the lawsuits against Ivy institutions from students who were denied admission based on their race and the universities' DEI admission policies. However most of these were settled rather than going to trial unlike the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) lawsuit which went to the Supreme Court and proved conclusively that DEI (affirmative action) admission policies were occurring at universities and violated the law.
Im aware of that I'm asking about universities being forced to pay significant payouts.None of those articles say that. The SC also ruled race can be factored in admissions and will likely do so more when Democrats take power again.
Let's try again... These DEI admission policies led to significant financial losses for the universities. Judge Dismisses Part of Harvard’s Lawsuit to Recoup Millions in Legal Fees A federal judge agreed to dismiss two counts in a lawsuit filed by Harvard against insurance broker Marsh USA in a major setback for the University’s efforts to recoup nearly $15 million in legal fees incurred from defending its race-conscious admissions practices in court. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/8/16/harvard-lawsuit-dismissed-legal-fees-marsh-usa/ Exclusive: UNC pays anti-affirmative action group $4.8 million after US Supreme Court loss https://www.reuters.com/world/us/un...llion-after-us-supreme-court-loss-2024-01-30/ UNC's unsuccessful race-based admissions fight cost $25 million UNC-Chapel Hill hired one of the country's biggest law firms in 2014 to defend its affirmative action admissions policy. The university lost a U.S. Supreme Court case over the policy, an effort that cost UNC at least $24.5 million. More costs could come. https://www.wral.com/story/unc-s-unsuccessful-race-based-admissions-fight-cost-25-million/21037612/
So its legal fees.Thats different than payouts imo.Your point is noted it did cost them millions in legal fees.